Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 12:56:35 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 15:16:35 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

You are a very wise person since debate is worthless. The only
thing that counts is experimental data, and the only experimental
data in existence is a bit thin. I find it very interesting that
when thin data exists, there are many who will prefer to beat the
drum for an opposing position which has NO data.

That is quite natural when people like you are over exploiting this
thin set of experimental data, claiming e.g. "this is PROOOOF that
a human soul exists" when it's not that at all.

I NEVER said it was proof. You are being dishonest. And you are conflating
"soul" with "spirit" after I have explained the difference (a minor matter
but indicative of your sloppiness).

Even if that body did lose 3/8 of an ounce as the moment of death,
how do you know that this weight loss is due to a soul leaving the
body?

I don't, of course, but you have NO evidence that it is anything else.

Perhaps that dying person just happened to fart at the moment of death
and the sole other person present was too embarrassed to mention this?

You misunderstand the physics involved in your speculation. There's no
difference physically between a fart coming out of one end or a breath
coming out the other end, except that breathing out is mostly CO2 whereas
farts are mostly methane which has less mass/volume than air.

Since no other person was present, there is no way to check this.

A baseless speculation refuted by doing a few simple calculations. I have
done this. Why didn't you before babbling nonsense?

So instead of complaining over this, why aren't you instead working
for having this measurement thoroughly? Of course this carries the
risk (from your viewpoint) that this measurement is refuted rather
than confirmed - is that what you are afraid of?

I did the work for air in the lungs a long time ago because this was
something that would not be accounted for in MacDougall's experiments.
But it turns out to be a trick question: There isn't any difference:

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/...s_with_air_as/

However, since methane is lighter than air, you get heavier when you fart :-)
Archimedes figured this out over two millenia ago.

On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:43:55 AM UTC-6, Bill wrote:

On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 08:56:33 +0200, Paul Schlyter wrote:

So instead of complaining over this, why aren't you instead working
for having this measurement thoroughly? Of course this carries the
risk (from your viewpoint) that this measurement is refuted rather
than confirmed - is that what you are afraid of?


Just how's anyone going to accomplish that, since society will not
sanction this sort of experimentation - much less fund it.

I was discussing this with a friend and we concluded that we could set
up some experiments outside of hospitals. Also, we wouldn't want to wait
around for a "patient" to die so we could "encourage" them to do so :-)

Perhaps Paul would like to volunteer to "help out" in the cause of
science :-)

On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 3:16:38 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

You are a very wise person since debate is worthless. The only thing that
counts is experimental data, and the only experimental data in existence
is a bit thin. I find it very interesting that when thin data exists, there
are many who will prefer to beat the drum for an opposing position which has
NO data.

I find it very interesting that when thin data exists, in this particular case *you* prefer to accept it as though it were god's word. Thin data is still thin data, which makes it very suspect, if not outright dismissable, without the addition of additional input.

As you say, debate is worthless... which begs the question, why do you insist that, in your view, it is even worth talking about?

On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 12:09:20 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
I was discussing this with a friend and we concluded that we could
set
up some experiments outside of hospitals. Also, we wouldn't want
to wait
around for a "patient" to die so we could "encourage" them to do so
:-)

Perhaps Paul would like to volunteer to "help out" in the cause of
science :-)

YOU are the one who should volunteer. After all you are the one
making extraordinary claims, and you ought to back it up with
extraordinary evidence.

However, you have a problem. Religion frowns at suicide, it says only
God, not men, can take lives, and that includes your own life. So
what happens to the spirit of someone committing suicide? In old
times, the bodies of people committing suicide were buried outside
the churchyard, in so-called "unholy ground". ND they were rumored to
have become ghosts, haunting those who were alive...

On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 09:30:17 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 12:56:35 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

That is quite natural when people like you are over exploiting
this
thin set of experimental data, claiming e.g. "this is PROOOOF
that a
human soul exists" when it's not that at all.

He will quite rightly reply that he never claimed it was *proof*.

What he is claiming, though, is this:

that since it's the only experimental data we have, even *though*
it's thin,
until such time as further experiments along this line are done to
get better
data, we should be basing our thinking on what data there is, not
our personal
prejudices.

So the _default_ assumption, until more evidence comes along,
should be that
there is a human soul, and it has mass.

That instead people are just rejecting the experimental data as bad
or unworthy
of consideration shows that they're biased.

This is, of course, wrong, but I have found it difficult to explain
exactly
_why_ it is wrong. Basically, for science to function, it needs to
take a fair
amount of evidence to move what it works on.

Plus, most religions don't claim the soul should have mass, so
there is no
pressure to be more fair to this idea, or the trouble of repeating
the
experiment might have been taken.

John Savard

Why should we draw any conclusion at all based on such meager and
uncertain data? The correct scientific conclusion would be that more
measurements are needed before any reasonable conclusion can be made.

And even if other measurements confirmed that the human body loses a
small amount of weight at the moment of death, how do you know that
weight loss is due to a soul leaving the body? There could be some
other explanation.

On 28/10/2018 05:20, palsing wrote:
On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 3:16:38 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel
wrote:

You are a very wise person since debate is worthless. The only
thing that counts is experimental data, and the only experimental
data in existence is a bit thin. I find it very interesting that
when thin data exists, there are many who will prefer to beat the
drum for an opposing position which has NO data.

I find it very interesting that when thin data exists, in this
particular case *you* prefer to accept it as though it were god's
word. Thin data is still thin data, which makes it very suspect, if
not outright dismissable, without the addition of additional input.

I am sure he could round up some evangelicals and other religious types
to volunteer to have the weight of their souls measured on their death.

Modern weighing kit can do 1g resolution on 100kg so he may need to find
patients who are not morbidly obese.

I hypothesise that in addition to having mass the actual mass depends on
how long their religion has been going so that Zoroastrians have the
heaviest souls and Mormons the lightest ;-)

His "evidence" is one crank more than a hundred years ago with very
dodgy kit and cherry picked data. On that basis he wants to junk the
conservation law of mass and energy by divine intervention.

The far simpler explanation is that although the body has died the
organs within it remain alive for a while and in particular the sweat
glands on the skin. 18g is about one mole of water vapour which would
quite easily evaporate from a dead body after the heart has stopped.

People who have had a cardiac arrest note the intense heating of their
head in addition to the pain in their chest when the coolant circulation
has failed. It isn't too surprising that after death some heat is dumped
by evaporative cooling. There is nothing magical going on here no matter
what some quack doctor in the early twentieth century may claim.

But it is up to those who treat this as gospel truth to put their money
where their mouth is and repeat the experiment under controlled
conditions and supervised by a magician to prevent cheating.

Uri Geller was far too easily able to trick scientists who tried to
study his spoon bending and "psychic" abilities. Strangely he could
never perform a trick that Randi couldn't replicate.

As you say, debate is worthless... which begs the question, why do
you insist that, in your view, it is even worth talking about?

He is indulging in lazy sophistry to try and win the argument.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In article ,
says...

On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 12:56:35 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 15:16:35 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

You are a very wise person since debate is worthless. The only
thing that counts is experimental data, and the only experimental
data in existence is a bit thin. I find it very interesting that
when thin data exists, there are many who will prefer to beat the
drum for an opposing position which has NO data.

That is quite natural when people like you are over exploiting this
thin set of experimental data, claiming e.g. "this is PROOOOF that
a human soul exists" when it's not that at all.

I NEVER said it was proof. You are being dishonest. And you are conflating
"soul" with "spirit" after I have explained the difference (a minor matter
but indicative of your sloppiness).

So then please clarify - what has a mass of about 3/8 ounces? The soul or
the spirit?


Even if that body did lose 3/8 of an ounce as the moment of death,
how do you know that this weight loss is due to a soul leaving the
body?

I don't, of course, but you have NO evidence that it is anything else.

Since I wan't present at that sole measurement you are right. I don't
know what actually happened. However, there are other possibilities more
plausible than the spirit proclaimed by Christianity. I suggested
farting. Check out this movie, at 48m-52m:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PYUYqAkS0Y


Perhaps that dying person just happened to fart at the moment of death
and the sole other person present was too embarrassed to mention this?

You misunderstand the physics involved in your speculation. There's no
difference physically between a fart coming out of one end or a breath
coming out the other end, except that breathing out is mostly CO2 whereas
farts are mostly methane which has less mass/volume than air.

FYI: a dead person does not breathe...


Since no other person was present, there is no way to check this.

A baseless speculation refuted by doing a few simple calculations. I have
done this. Why didn't you before babbling nonsense?

My nonsens is less than your nonsense about invisible entities having
mass. Aren't "spirits" supposed to be immaterial?

Anyway, suppose the spirit is material and has mass. What's the state of
the spirit? Is it:

1. Solid? Fixed volume and fixed shape.

2. Liquid? Fixed volume but variable shape.

3. Gaseous? Variable volume and shape.

4. Plasma? Variable volume and shape and non-neutral electrical charge.

What would your answer be? If the spirit has mass, it must have one of
these states.


So instead of complaining over this, why aren't you instead working
for having this measurement thoroughly? Of course this carries the
risk (from your viewpoint) that this measurement is refuted rather
than confirmed - is that what you are afraid of?

I did the work for air in the lungs a long time ago because this was
something that would not be accounted for in MacDougall's experiments.
But it turns out to be a trick question: There isn't any difference:

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/...s_with_air_as/

However, since methane is lighter than air, you get heavier when you fart :-)
Archimedes figured this out over two millenia ago.

Suppose you have a balloon filled with methane. It floats up into the
air, right? Now, empty the ballon. Does it fall to the ground or continue
to float upwards?

On 28/10/2018 09:52, Paul Schlyter wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 12:56:35 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 15:16:35 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

You are a very wise person since debate is worthless. The only
thing that counts is experimental data, and the only experimental
data in existence is a bit thin. I find it very interesting that
when thin data exists, there are many who will prefer to beat the
drum for an opposing position which has NO data.

That is quite natural when people like you are over exploiting this
thin set of experimental data, claiming e.g. "this is PROOOOF that
a human soul exists" when it's not that at all.

I NEVER said it was proof. You are being dishonest. And you are conflating
"soul" with "spirit" after I have explained the difference (a minor matter
but indicative of your sloppiness).

So then please clarify - what has a mass of about 3/8 ounces? The soul or
the spirit?

Approximately 1 mole of water vapour which is probably about the amount
that would be lost due to evaporative cooling of a still warm corpse
when the heart stops pumping blood around the body.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In article ,
says...

On 28/10/2018 09:52, Paul Schlyter wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 12:56:35 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 15:16:35 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

You are a very wise person since debate is worthless. The only
thing that counts is experimental data, and the only experimental
data in existence is a bit thin. I find it very interesting that
when thin data exists, there are many who will prefer to beat the
drum for an opposing position which has NO data.

That is quite natural when people like you are over exploiting this
thin set of experimental data, claiming e.g. "this is PROOOOF that
a human soul exists" when it's not that at all.

I NEVER said it was proof. You are being dishonest. And you are conflating
"soul" with "spirit" after I have explained the difference (a minor matter
but indicative of your sloppiness).

So then please clarify - what has a mass of about 3/8 ounces? The soul or
the spirit?

Approximately 1 mole of water vapour which is probably about the amount
that would be lost due to evaporative cooling of a still warm corpse
when the heart stops pumping blood around the body.

A much more plausible explanation.

On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:20:06 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:

On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 3:16:38 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

You are a very wise person since debate is worthless. The only thing that
counts is experimental data, and the only experimental data in existence
is a bit thin. I find it very interesting that when thin data exists,
there are many who will prefer to beat the drum for an opposing position
which has NO data.

I find it very interesting that when thin data exists, in this particular
case *you* prefer to accept it as though it were god's word.

And it is interesting that you prefer to misstate by claim in order to
draw a false conclusion.

Thin data is still thin data, which makes it very suspect, if not outright
dismissable, without the addition of additional input.

And no data is still NO data.

As you say, debate is worthless... which begs the question, why do you
insist that, in your view, it is even worth talking about?

I might ask YOU the same question :-)

I am only answering your not-very-well-thought-out objections. Otherwise,
there would be nothing more to say.

Why should we draw any conclusion at all based on such meager and
uncertain data?

My point is that why should one draw the conclusion that there is no
afterlife nor God from absolutely NO evidence when there is SOME
evidence that there is?

The correct scientific conclusion would be that more measurements are
needed before any reasonable conclusion can be made.

Agreed, but why have you come to the opposite conclusion with NO evidence?

And even if other measurements confirmed that the human body loses a
small amount of weight at the moment of death, how do you know that
weight loss is due to a soul leaving the body? There could be some other
explanation.

"Could be?" is a weasel word. It "could be" that you are a solipsist.